Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print

>Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
>Never use a long word where a short one will do.
>If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
>Never use the passive where you can use the active.
>Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
>Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous.

>Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent
I always had trouble with this. Maybe it's because I write in another language.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the rule anyway. When I use those words, it's because they more precisely describe what I'm trying to get across. I don't understand the value of gimping your vocabulary.

>I don't understand the value of gimping your vocabulary.
So that you can expand it? Avoiding cliches is not a controversial rule.

I don't see how using an everyday English word is meant to expand my vocabulary.

I'm guessing user thought gimping meant showing off.

> I don't see how using an everyday English word is meant to expand my vocabulary
That's because you should not be writing 'to expand *your* vocabulary'; one writes to inform or entertain the *reader*.

Sure, and restricting the pool I have to pick from when choosing the perfect word seems unhelpful in doing so. If I'm writing for kids, I understand that there is a level I need to stoop to, but for adults? I refuse to assume an audience is unintelligent.

How to write like a fucking bore 101

>If it is possible to cut a word out, cut it

I think the Always is necessary

Only for emphasis. Also:
>cut out unnecessary words

My bad, I don't why why but I thought you were talking about this rule:
>>Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

Anyway I still agree with him up to a point, and I stand by what I've said (even if I made that point for the wrong reasons). He is just suggesting to use words carefully. The key sentence is "if you can think". If you can immediatly find a simpler equivalent, chances are that the words you had chosen where not essential enough. In the long run you will be able to use less common words while placing them in their exact context, ending up having a text in which every word has its actual place and no sentence is wasted.

Again, this is not an uncontroversial advice, it's there for people to avoid being uselessly verbose.

>cut unnecessary words

>cut words

>cut if possible

Come on guys, are you even trying?

Never underestimate the stupidity of normal people. Imagine someone of average intelligence; got it? Half of every single person on the planet is more stupid than that.

Unless you're writing to an academic, always assume the reader is thick as fuck.

>cut if you can
You gotta follow all the rules

I will not. I have no interest in writing for the lowest common denominator

>can you cut?
Step on my level.

>cut

Then you will never write as well as Orwell.

Have we reached the level of saying something barbarous yet?

>Then you will never write like Orwell
ftfy

Apart from the first one, pretty shit rules desu

The original rule allows you to cut ONLY if you can. "Cut" won't cut it.

It also requires you to do so, and yet we dropped always with very little fanfare

'To write like' and 'to write as well as' are not the same.

Yes, that's my point.

Why ape? If one can write as well as Orwell, then imitation is unnecessary.

I think you've gotten turned around. I'm arguing against following these rules to the letter

>good advice
>no shit
>not always
>no no not always but most of the time
>haha le english politeness

Have you read the last rule?

Why are you arguing with me, when we seem to basically agree? There are lots of fights to pick on Veeky Forums.

I'm not. Orwell's Politics and the English Language should be required reading by all literate English users.

I'm not that guy, I'm just pointing out that the last rule contraddicts your argument.

I would love nothing more than to slaughter the lot you. Useless and dreamless and heartless shadows populating their insignificant little caves & thinking they've got it all figured out but you're the last thing anyone imagines when imagining creativity or wisdom or truth.

No, seriously - I would fucking sacrifice each of you viciously and without remorse if only she would actually love me the way she says she does. But she doesn't so you faggots are fucked.